September 22, 2011

1. Safety Strategies WorkshopAitkin CountyCarlton CountyPine CountyChisago County September 22, 2011

2. Agenda • Safety Planning (Goals and Objectives) • Safety Planning Process • Data Overview • State & ATP Level • County level • Safety Emphasis Areas • Safety Strategies • Safety Strategies Workshop • Breakout Groups • Voting Exercise

3. Goals and Objectives • Data driven • The new National Safety Performance measure = SEVERE crashes • 4 E’s • Foster safety culture among county stakeholders • Development of County Safety Plans • Unique safety plan • Establish safety emphasis areas • High priority safety strategies • Safety investment options • Identify high priority safety projects, both proactive and reactive. • Position counties to Compete for Safety Funds • Highway Safety Improvement Program • High Risk Rural Roads Program • Minnesota Central Safety Funds

4. Project Approach – Phase III    Aug 2011 Jun 2011 Jul 2011 Sept 2011 Develop Comprehensive List of Safety Strategies Crash Analysis Select Safety Emphasis Areas Aug 2011 Safety Workshop Kick-off Video Meeting Review Mtg w/ Counties Project Programming Project Development Implementation Evaluation Refinement & Update SHSP Dec 2011 Identify Short List of Critical Strategies Identify Safety Projects Jan 2012 Nov 2011 Feb 2012 Safety Plan

5. ATP 1 & 7 County Severe Crash Numbers Legend 10/yr (50 total) - Severe crashes on any jurisdiction 4/yr (20 total) - Severe crashes on CSAH/CR MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010 Severe = K (fatal) + A (life-changing injury) Note: Chisago county does not have a large enough crash dataset to be analyzed separately. Chisago crashes are 68% rural, while other ATP 1 counties are on average 73% rural. Therefore Chisago will be included in ATP 1 analysis. 3/yr (16) 1/yr (4) 4/yr (18) 1/yr (6) 6/yr (30) 2/yr (8) 72/yr (360) 21/yr (103) • No county in ATP 1 has a high number of severe crashes on their highway system. • No county has enough severe crashes to support the development of a safety plan through a data driven process. • ATP 1 does have enough severe crashes – the ATP totals will be used to identify safety emphasis areas for all of the counties. 20/yr (100) 7/yr (34) 15/yr (74) 5/yr (24) 8/yr (41) 2/yr (12) 13/yr (63) 7/yr (33)` 21/yr (105) 10/yr (49)

6. ATP 1 County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010 Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). Includes Chisago County 5 Year Crashes ATP 1 27,411 806 Example All – % Severe – % CSAH/CR 5,766 – 21% 273 – 34% State System 12,355 – 45% 384 – 48% City, Twnshp, Other 9,290 – 34% 149 – 18% Urban 2,747 – 48% 69 – 25% Rural 3,019 – 52% 204 – 75% Not Animal 2,717 – 90% 188 – 92% Animal 301 – 10% 16 – 8% Unknown/Other 230 – 8% 3 – 4% Not Inters-Related 1,205 – 44% 41 – 60% Inters-Related 1,312 – 48% 25 – 36% Unknown/Other 208 – 8% 8 – 4% Inters-Related 714 – 26% 53 – 28% Not Inters-Related 1,794 – 66% 127 – 68% Run Off Road – 294 (24%), 18 (44%) Head On – 90 (8%), 6 (15%) Rear End – 286 (24%), 4 (10%) Right Angle – 119 (10%), 3 (7%) Other/Unknown 344 – 48% 29 – 55% Signalized 15 – 2% 0 – 0% All Way Stop 51 – 7% 4 – 8% Thru-Stop 303 – 42% 20 – 38% Head On, SS Opp 130 – 7% 19 – 15% Run off Road 1,154 – 64% 79 – 62% Signalized 301 – 23% 6 – 24% All Way Stop 136 – 10% 1 – 4% Thru-Stop 508 – 39% 11 – 44% Other/Unknown 367 – 28% 7 – 28% Run Off Road – 128 (37%), 9 (31%) Left Turn – 25 (7%), 5 (17%) “Other” – 30 (9%), 5 (17%) Rear End – 56 (16%), 3 (10%) On Curve 59 – 45% 5 – 26% On Curve 486 – 42% 37 – 47% Left Turn – 52 (17%), 4 (67%) Rear End – 109 (36%), 1 (17%) Right Angle – 68 (23%), 1 (17%) Head On – 20 (7%), 0 (0%) Right Angle – 246 (48%), 6 (55%) “Not Applicable” – 14 (3%), 2 (18%) SS. Opp – 21 (4%), 1 (9%) Left Turn – 43 (8%), 1 (9%) Right Angle – 115 (38%), 10 (50%) “Other” – 58 (19%), 3 (15%) Run Off Road – 35 (12%), 2 (10%) Head On – 19 (6%), 2 (10%)

7. Workshop Group 1A Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, 2006-2010 Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 5 Year Crashes Group 1A 7,076 283 Aitkin, Carlton, Pine & Chisago Counties Example All – % Severe – % • In Aitkin, Carlton, Pine and Chisago Counties: • 44% of severe crashes are on the state systems • 42% of severe crashes are on the county roadways • 74% of the severe crashes on the county roadways are RURAL • 31% of rural severe crashes are at intersections and 67% are non-intersection related • 69% of severe non-intersection related crashes are run off the road. • 44% of severe non-intersection related run off road crashes occur in curves. • 33% of severe intersection related crashes are at Thru/STOP (2-way STOP) locations and 50% of those are Right Angle Crashes State System 4,297 – 61% 124 – 44% CSAH/CR 1,869 – 26% 118 – 42% City, Twnshp, Other 894 – 13% 41 – 14% Rural 1,153 – 62% 87 – 74% Not Animal 1,037 – 90% 78 – 90% Inters-Related 317 – 31% 24 – 31% Not Inters-Related 637– 61% 52 – 67% Thru-Stop 147 – 46% 8 – 33% Run off Road 410 – 64% 36 – 69% On Curve 201– 49% 16 – 44% Right Angle – 56 (38%),4 (50%)

8. Workshop Group 1A Emphasis Areas • The idea behind Safety Emphasis Areas is to assist the safety planning process by providing a uniform set of crash types and characteristics that encourages establishing safety priorities – identifying the types of crashes that result in the greatest number of fatalities and severe injuries. • County roadways in ATP 1, the Top 5 Safety Emphasis Areas include: • Impaired Drivers, Unbelted Occupants, Road Departure, Head On and Intersections • In individual counties, the actual number of crashes in each Emphasis Area and the rank order varies slightly, however, because of the low number of severe crashes in each county the differences are not statistically significant.

9. Screening - Initial Strategies AASHTO’s SHSP, NCHRP Report 500 Implementation Guidelines, and input from Safety Partners. The strategies will be screened using: - Crash data, - Effectiveness, - Cost, and - Input from Safety Workshop. The Critical Strategies should have the greatest potential to significantly reduce the number of traffic fatalities. Speeding 2 Strategies Head On 7 Strategies Road Departure 13 Strategies Intersections 77 Strategies Young Drivers 2 Strategies Seat Belts 4 Strategies Alcohol/Drug 15 Strategies Critical Strategies Education Strategies Enforcement Strategies Engineering Strategies Emergency Services Strategies

10. Safety Strategies Overview NCHRP Report 500 • A series of guides to assist state and local agencies in reducing injuries and fatalities in targeted emphasis areas • The guides correspond to the emphasis areas outlined in the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. • Each guide includes a brief introduction, a general description of the problem, the strategies/ countermeasures to address the problem, and a model implementation process.

11. Example: Intersection Strategy Prioritization 70+ Initial Strategies • Reduce the Frequency through Geometric Design • Optimize signal operation • Indirect Left Turn intersection • Right & Left Turn Lanes • Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections • Enhanced signing and delineation • Supplementary stop signs • Choose appropriate intersection traffic control • Roundabouts • Improve access management near intersections • Restrict access to properties using driveway closures 15+ High Priority • Reduce the Frequency through Geometric Design • Optimize signal operation • Use indirect left-turn treatments • Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections • Enhanced signing and delineation • Choose appropriate intersection traffic control • Roundabouts 5+ Top Voted • Reduce the Frequency through Geometric Design • Use indirect left-turn treatments • Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections • Enhanced signing and delineation • Choose appropriate intersection traffic control • Roundabouts 2+ Critical Strategies • Reduce the Frequency through Geometric Design • Use indirect left-turn treatments • Improve Driver Awareness of Intersections • Enhanced signing and delineation … … Small group discussion and prioritization. Large group discussion and voting. Selection by County Staff. …

12. Example – Typical Intersection Strategies Included Strategies: Change Intersection Type Dynamic Warning Signs Street Lighting Enhanced Signing and Delineation Improve Sight Distance

13. Example – Typical Run-Off Road Strategies

14. List of Road Departure Strategies

15. Phase I & II Safety Planning Process Safety Workshop • 12 Workshops • Over 500 attendees Identify Short List of Critical Strategies • Top Infrastructure Voted Strategies • Edgeline Rumble Strips/StripEs • Street Lights • Enhanced Shoulder or Delineation on Curve Identify Safety Projects • $114M worth of safety projects • 5,400 miles of edge treatment ($41M) • 7,600 curves delineation ($52M) • 2,100 intersection improvements ($20M) Safety Plan Introduction Initial Crash Analysis Safety Emphasis Areas Safety Strategies Detailed Crash Analysis Safety Projects

16. Today’s Objective • Break into 2 groups (11:30am – 2:30pm) • Infrastructure & Driver Behavior • Discuss & Prioritize the Short List of Strategies • Wrap Up (2:30pm – 3:00pm) • Review Breakout Discussions • Voting Exercise • Adjourn For updates on the progress of the Statewide County Road Safety Plans: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/sa_county_traffic_safety_plans.html